ENGL 102 Netiquette Statement In order to maintain a p

ENGL 102
Netiquette Statement
In order to maintain a positive online environment for our class,
we all need to follow the
netiquette guidelines summarized below.
All students are expected to:
1. show respect for the instructor and for other students in the
class
2. respect the privacy of other students
3. express differences of opinion in a polite and rational way
4. maintain an environment of constructive criticism when
commenting on the work of other
students
5. complete all assignments on time
6. avoid bringing up irrelevant topics when involved in group
discussions or other collaborative
activities
The following list summarizes the kind of behavior that will not
be tolerated. Each item listed
below is grounds for removal from the class.
Students should not:
1. Show disrespect for the instructor or for other students in the
class
2. Send messages or comments that are threatening, harassing,
or offensive
3. Use inappropriate or offensive language
4. Convey a hostile or confrontational tone when
communicating or working collaboratively with

other students
5.USE ALL UPPERCASE IN THEIR MESSAGES -- THIS IS
THE EQUIVALENT OF
SHOUTING!!!
6. Place images in the body of their discussion questions
messages. Other students and the
instructor may be using a dial-up connection. If you feel
compelled to refer to an image please
either attach the image to the DQ message or upload the image
to the Web and place a link to it
in your message.
If I feel that a student is violating any of the above guidelines, I
will contact that student to
discuss the situation in person. If you feel that a student is
behaving inappropriately, please
send me a private e-mail message explaining the situation as
soon as possible.
Discussion Board Tips / Rubric
1. Contribute in a timely manner and frequently. Do not wait
until the end of the discussion
window for each week. This will help you to stay on top of the
discussion and to gain the
most from it. If you develop a habit of just jumping in at the
beginning, in the middle or at
the end, you will not be able to read all the discussion
comments, capture the key issues

discussed and to contribute in a meaningful manner.
2. Read posts from others thoroughly and reflect before
responding.
3. Contribution to the discussion should not be based on cutting
and pasting information
from different resources but rather on a summary of findings
from key resources as they
pertain to the topic being discussed in your own words. Respond
to others’ comments by
writing your comment first and then update your subject line.
4. Posts should be sound, with argument or analysis supported
by research and literature,
with attention to grammar, typos, and punctuation
5. Be clear and concise. Short comments may be appropriate in
some cases but effective
comments may need to be longer to be more comprehensive
(Suggest 2 paragraphs
maximum).
6. But I don’t know what to say! (Hint: “I agree” does not only
not count as a contribution, it
may annoy your classmates!) Instead:
● Add to the discussion by adding new information to
(amplifying) the point made
that you agree with
● If you disagree with an answer, post yours and explain why
● Think something is missing from the discussion? Broaden the
perspective.
● If you do not understand (although you don’t have an answer
either), explain

what you do understand about the topic in a couple of
sentences, and ask for
clarification from online classmates.
● Think you’ve read or learned information from another source
that would be
helpful? Post a link to that news article, blog post, etc.
To participate effectively, you must have read all of the
assigned material. One of the
purposes of discussion is to demonstrate that you’ve read and
understood it. We can discuss
what different people understood from the readings, but
everyone must be grounded in a close
reading of the assigned materials. You are expected to post two
times in the Discussion Board
and respond two times to peers (total of 4 posts per week). In
the discussion feel free to
expand the conversation and integrate relevant personal
examples and outside information. You
must link any outside examples to the assigned readings,
articles, discussion board prompts, or
week content--the expectation is that you include clear evidence
that you engaged deeply with
assigned readings (providing brief summary and/or quoting to
specific examples in the
readings).
In your replies to two peers, offer feedback, ask further
questions, or provide a personal

reflection or commentary on their post. When replying to your
peers consider replying using one
or more of the following roles:
● Validating--Validate the contributions of your peers and
explain why their contributions
resonate
● Resourceful--Share or create resources that contribute to the
discussion
● Inquiring--Offer feedback, ask questions, provide reflection
or commentary
● Community Expander--Lead the discussion to deeper
discourse and branch into new,
but related topics
EVALUATION RUBRIC
Quality
(3)
Initiative
(3)
Expanding on
Discussion
(3)
Relevance
(3)
Timeliness*

(3)
#of Posts
(5)
Thoughtful,
supported with
argumentation (not
opinion) and facts.
Appropriate
academic level,
correct grammar,
punctuation/
spelling.
Posting
questions,
clarifying posts
from others,
providing links
to other
relevant
materials.
Expanding to
see the “big
picture,” adding
something new,
crediting peers.
On topic,
pertains to
important
questions or
themes.

Contribute when
threads are alive
and others will
benefit from
ideas offered.
Per week:
Answer 3
questions posted
by instructor AND
respond to 3
classmates’
responses
(minimum).
Respond to
questions and
comments that
interest you most
and demonstrate
your knowledge
of the material.
ELEVENTH orr.1
• •
etoric wit
-event it ion

This page intentionally left blank
• •
etoric wit
-event
John D. Ratnage
Arizona State University
John C. Bean
Seattle University
June Johnson
Seattle University
it ion
330 Hudson St r eet, NY NY 10013
Director of English: Karon Bowers
Executive Producer and Publisher: Aron Keesbury
Development Editor: Steven Rigolosi
Marketing Manager: Nicholas Bolt
Program Manager: Rachel Harbour
Project Manager: Nathaniel J. Jones, SPi Global
Cover Designer: Pentagram
Cover Illustration: Christopher DeLorenzo

Manufacturing Buyer: Roy L. Pickering, Jr.
Printer /Binder: LSC Communications, Inc.
Cover Printer: Phoenix Color /Hagerstown
Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on pages 564-
566, which constitute an extension of
this copyright page.
PEARSON, ALWAYS LEARNING, and Revel are exclusive
trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc.,
or its affiliates in the United States and/ or other countries.
Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks
that may appear in this work are the
property of their respective owners and any references to third-
party trademarks, logos, or other trade
dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such
references are not intended to imply any
sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of
Pearson's products by the owners of such marks,
or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education,
Inc., or its affiliates, authors, licensees, or
distributors.
Catalogue-in-Publishing Data is on file with the Library of
Congress
Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All
Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States
of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and
permission should be obtained from the
publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a
retrieval system, or transmission in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise. For information regarding
permissions, request forms and the appropriate contacts within

the Pearson Education Global Rights &
Permissions Department, please visit
www.pearsoned.com/permissions/.
1 18
Rental Edition ISBN 10: 0-134-75974-5
Rental Edition ISBN 13: 978-0-134-75974-6
Ala Carte ISBN 10: 0-134-76096-4
Ala Carte ISBN 13: 978-0-134-76096-4
Access Code Card ISBN 10: 0-134-80785-5
Access Code Card ISBN 13: 978-0-134-80785-0
Instructor Review Copy ISBN 10: 0-134-77059-5
Instructor Review Copy ISBN 13: 978-0-134-77059-8
• •
•
r1e
Part One Principles of Argument 1
1 Argument: An Introduction 2
2 The Core of an Argument : A Claim
with Reasons 17
3 The Logical Structure of Arguments:
Logos 32
4 Using Evidence Effectively

5 Moving Your Audience:
Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos
6 Responding to Objections
and Alternative Views
Part Two Entering an
Argumentative
Conversation
52
67
83
103
7 Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically 104
8 Argument as Inquiry: Reading,
Summarizing, and Speaking Back 127
Part Three Expanding Our
Understanding of
Argument 155
9 Making Visual and Multimodal
Arguments
10 An Alternative to Argument:
Collaborative Rhetoric
Part Four Arguments in Depth:
Types of Claims

11 An Introduction to the
Types of Claims
156
189
211
212
12 Definition and Resemblance
Arguments
13 Causal Arguments
14 Evaluation and Ethical
Arguments
15 Proposal Arguments
Part Five The Researched
Argument
16 Finding and Evaluating
Sources
17 Incorporating Sources into
Your Own Argument
18 Citing and Documenting
Sources
Appendix Informal Fallacies

Part Six An Anthology of
Arguments
Choices for a Sustainable World
Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society?
Public Health
Challenges in Education
Self-Driving Cars
Immigration in the Twenty-First
Century
Argument Classics
221
250
280
306
341
342
360
375
397

405
406
431
461
477
511
532
549
v
Preface
Acknowledgments
Part One Principles of Argument
1 Argument: An Introduction
What Do We Mean by Argument?
Argument Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel
Argument Is Not Pro-Con Debate

Arguments Can Be Explicit or Implicit
An Explicit Argument Opposing Legalization
of Marijuana
For Writing and Discussion: Implicit and
Explicit Arguments
••
xvn
•••
XXlll
1
2
3
3
3
4
5
5
The Defining Features of Argument 8
Argument Requires Justification of Its Claims 8
Argument Is Both a Process and a Product

Argument Combines Truth-Seeking and
Persuasion
Argument and the Problem of Truth in the
21st Century
For Writing and Discussion: Role-Playing
Arguments
Conclusion
2 The Core of an Argument:
A Claim with Reason
The Classical Structure of Argument
Classical Appeals and the Rhetorical Triangle
Issue Questions as the Origins of Argument
Difference between an Issue Question
and an Information Question
How to Identify an Issue Question
For Writing and Discussion: Information
Questions Versus Issue Questions
Difference between a Genuine Argument
and a Pseudo-Argument
10
10
12

14
16
17
17
19
21
21
22
22
23
For Writing and Discussion: Reasonable
Arguments Versus Pseudo-Arguments
Frame of an Argument: A Claim Supported by
Reasons
What Is a Reason?
For Writing and Discussion: Using Images to
Support an Argument
Expressing Reasons in Because Clauses
For Writing and Discussion: Developing
Claims and Reasons

Conclusion
Writing Assignment: An Issue Question
and Working Thesis Statements
3 The Logical Structure
of Arguments: Logos
An Overview of Logos: What Do We Mean by the
25
25
26
27
29
30
30
30
32
"Logical Structure" of an Argument? 32
Formal Logic Versus Real-World Logic 33
The Role of Assumptions 33
The Core of an Argument: The Enthymeme 34

The Power of Audience-Based Reasons 35
For Writing and Discussion: Identifying
Underlying Assumptions and Choosing
Audience-Based Reasons
Adopting a Language for Describing Arguments:
36
The Toulmin System 36
Enthymemes with the Toulmin Schema 41
Using Toulmin's Schema to Plan and Test Your
Argument 42
Hypothetical Example: Cheerleaders as
Athletes 42
First Part of Chandale' s Argument 43
Continuation of Chandale' s Argument 44
Extended Student Example: Girls and Violent
Video Games 45
••
VII
viii Contents
Carmen Tieu (Student Essay), Why Violent Video

Games Are Good for Girls 47
The Thesis-Governed "Self-Announcing"
Structure of Classical Argument 49
For Writing and Discussion: Reasons,
Warrants, and Conditions of Rebuttal 50
Use Specific Examples and Illustrations
Use Narratives
Use Words, Metaphors, and Analogies with
Appropriate Connotations
For Writing and Discussion: Incorporating
Appeals to Pathos
Conclusion 50 Kairos: The Timeliness and Fitness of
A Note on the Informal Fallacies 51 Arguments
For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing an Writing Assignment:
Plan of an Argument's
Details 51 Argument from the Perspectives of Logos,
Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos
4 Using Evidence Effectively 52
Kinds of Evidence 52
The Persuasive Use of Evidence 55
Apply the STAR Criteria to Evidence 55
Establish a Trustworthy Ethos 57

Be Mindful of a Source's Distance from
Original Data 57
Rhetorical Understanding of Evidence 58
Angle of Vision and the Selection and
Framing of Evidence 59
For Writing and Discussion: Creating
Contrasting Angles of Vision 60
Examining Visual Arguments: Angle of Vision 60
Rhetorical Strategies for Framing Evidence 62
Strategies for Framing Statistical Evidence 64
For Writing and Discussion: Using Strategies
to Frame Statistical Evidence 65
Creating a Plan for Gathering Evidence 65
Conclusion 65
Writing Assignment: A Supporting-Reasons
Argument 66
5 Moving Your Audience: Ethos,
Pathos, and Kairos 67
Logos, Ethos, and Pathos as Persuasive
Appeals: An Overview 68
How to Create an Effective Ethos: The Appeal to
Credibility 69
How to Create Pathos: The Appeal to Beliefs and

Emotions 70
Use Concrete Language 71
Using Images to Appeal to Logos, Ethos,
Pathos, and Kairos
For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing
Images as Appeals to Pathos
Examining Visual Arguments: Logos, Ethos,
Pathos, and Kairos
How Audience-Based Reasons Appeal
to Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos
For Writing and Discussion: Planning an
Audience-Based Argumentative Strategy
Conclusion
Writing Assignment: Revising a Draft
for Ethos, Pathos, and Audience-Based
Reasons
6 Responding to Objections
and Alternative Views
One-Sided, Multisided, and Delayed-Thesis
Arguments
Determining Your Audience's Resistance
to Your Views
Appealing to a Supportive Audience:
One-Sided Argument

Appealing to a Neutral or Undecided
Audience: Classical Argument
Summarizing Opposing Views
For Writing and Discussion: Distinguishing
Fair from Unfair Summaries
Refuting Opposing Views
Strategies for Rebutting Evidence
Conceding to Opposing Views
72
73
74
74
74
76
76
77
78
79
81

82
82
83
84
85
86
87
87
88
89
90
91
Example of a Student Essay Using Refutation
Strategy 92
Trudie Makens (Student Essay), Bringing
Dignity to Workers: Make the Minimum
Wage a Living Wage
For Writing and Discussion:
Refutation Strategies
Appealing to a Resistant Audience:

Delayed-Thesis Argument
ALEXANDER CHANCELLOR, Oh,
92
94
94
How I Will Miss the Plastic Bag 95
Writing a Delayed-Thesis Argument 97
Conclusion 98
Writing Assignment: A Classical Argument
or a Delayed Thesis Argument 98
Reading 98
Lauren Shinozuka (Student Essay), The
Dangers of Digital Distractedness 98
Part 1Wo Entering an
Argumentative
Conversation 103
7 Analyzing Arguments
Rhetorically 104
Thinking Rhetorically about a Text 105
Reconstructing a Text's Rhetorical Context 105
Author, Motivating Occasion, and Purpose 105

Audience 107
Genre 107
Angle of Vision 108
Asking Questions That Promote Rhetorical
Thinking 109
For Writing and Discussion: Practicing
Rhetorical Analysis 111
Conducting a Rhetorical Analysis of a
Source Text 112
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ, Egg Heads 113
Rhetorical Features 116
Our Own Rhetorical Analysis of "Egg Heads" 116
Conclusion
Writing Assignment: A Rhetorical Analysis
119
120
Contents ix
Readings
ELLEN GOODMAN, Womb for Rent
121

122
Critiquing "Womb for Rent" 123
Zachary Stumps (Student Essay), A Rhetorical
Analysis Of Ellen Goodman's "Womb For Rent" 123
8 Argument as Inquiry: Reading,
Summarizing, and Speaking
Back 127
Finding Issues to Explore 128
Do Some Initial Brainstorming 128
Be Open to the Issues All Around You 128
Explore Ideas by Freewriting 129
For Writing and Discussion: Responding to
Visual Arguments About a Living Wage 131
Explore Ideas by Idea Mapping 133
Explore Ideas by Playing the Believing and
Doubting Game 133
For Writing and Discussion: Playing the
Believing and Doubting Game 135
Summarizing a Stakeholder's Argument 135
JAMES SUROWIECKI, The Pay Is Too
Damn Low 136

Thinking Steps for Writing a Summary 137
For Writing and Discussion: Does/Says
Statements 138
Examples of Summaries 139
Responding to a Stakeholder 's Argument 140
Practicing Believing: Willing Your Own
Acceptance of the Writer's Views 140
Practicing Doubting: Willing Your Own
Resistance to the Writer's Views 140
For Writing and Discussion: Raising Doubts
About Surowiecki's Argument 141
Thinking Dialectically 142
For Writing and Discussion: Practicing
Dialectic Thinking with Two Articles 143
MICHAEL SALTSMAN, To Help the
Poor, Move Beyond "Minimum" Gestures 143
Three Ways to Foster Dialectic Thinking 144
Conclusion
Writing Assignment: An Argument
Summary or a Formal Exploratory Essay
146
146

X Contents
Reading 148
Trudie Makens (Student Essay), Should
Fast-Food Workers Be Paid $15 per Hour? 148
Part Three Expanding Our
Understanding
of Argument 155
9 Making Visual and
Multimodal Arguments 156
Understanding Visual Design Elements in
Multimodal Argument 157
Use of Type 158
Use of Space and Layout 159
Use of Color 161
Use of Images and Graphics 161
For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing an
Advocacy Ad 164
The Compositional Features of Photographs
and Drawings 165
Compositional Features to Examine in
Photos and Drawings 166

An Analysis of a Multimedia Video
Argument Using Words, Images, and Music 168
For Writing and Discussion: Thinking
Rhetorically about Photos 171
The Genres of Multimodal Argument 172
Posters and Fliers 172
Public Affairs Advocacy Advertisements 174
Cartoons 175
Posters Rhetorically 175
Cartoons 177
Websites 177
Advocacy Videos 178
Constructing Your Own Multimodal Arguments 178
Guidelines for Creating the Visual Elements
in Posters, Fliers, and Advocacy Ads 178
Guidelines for Creating Video Arguments 179
Ideas for an Advocacy Ad or Poster
Argument 180
Using Information Graphics in Arguments 180

How Tables Contain a Variety of Stories 181
Using a Graph to Tell a Story 182
Incorporating Graphics into Your Argument 185
A Note on How Graphics Frame Data
Rhetorically 186
Conclusion 187
Writing Assignment: A Visual Argument
Rhetorical Analysis, a Visual Argument, or
a Short Argument Using Quantitative Data 188
10 An Alternative to Argument:
Collaborative Rhetoric 189
The Appropriateness and Usefulness of
The Principles of Collaborative Rhetoric 191
Practicing N onjudgmental Listening 192
Identifying Values, Emotions, and Identities 192
Seeking Common Ground 193
Promoting Openness to Ongoing
Communication and Change 194
For Writing and Discussion: Listening
Empathically and Seeking Common
Ground 194

Preparing for Collaborative Rhetoric Through
Reflective Writing and Discussion 196
Preparing for Collaborative Rhetoric
Through Reflective Writing 196
Practicing Collaborative Rhetoric in
Discussion 197
For Writing and Discussion: Conducting
a Collaborative Rhetoric Discussion 197
Writing an Open Letter as Collaborative
Rhetoric 198
Colleen Fontana (Student Essay), An Open
Letter to Robert Levy in Response to His
Article "They Never Learn" 199
Conclusion 204
Writing Assignment: An Open Letter as
Reading 205
Monica Allen (Student Essay), An Open
Letter to Christopher Eide in Response to
His Article "High-Performing Charter Schools
Can Close the Opportunity Gap" 205
Part Four Arguments in Depth:
Types of Claims 211

11 An Introduction to the Types
of Claims 212
The Types of Claims and Their Typical Patterns
of Development 213
Types of Claims 214
Using Claim Types to Focus an Argument and
Generate Ideas: An Example 214
Writer 1: Ban £-Cigarettes 215
Writer 2: Promote £-Cigarettes as a Preferred
Alternative to Real Cigarettes 216
Writer 3: Place No Restrictions on £-Cigarettes 217
Hybrid Arguments: How Claim Types Work
Together in Arguments 217
Some Examples of Hybrid Arguments 217
For Writing and Discussion: Exploring
Different Claim Types and Audiences 218
An Extended Example of a Hybrid Argument 219
ALEX HUTCHINSON, Your Daily
Multivitamin May Be Hurting You 219
12 Definition and Resemblance
Arguments
What Is at Stake in an Argument about

221
Definition and Resemblance? 222
Consequences Resulting from Categorical
Claims 223
The Rule of Justice: Things in the Same
Category Should Be Treated the Same Way 223
For Writing and Discussion: Applying the
Rule of Justice 224
Types of Categorical Arguments 225
Simple Categorical Arguments 225
For Writing and Discussion: Supporting
and Rebutting Simple Categorical Claims 225
Definition Arguments 226
Resemblance Argument Using Analogy 226
Analogies 227
Resemblance Arguments Using Precedent 228
•
Contents XI
For Writing and Discussion: Using Claims of
Precedent 229

Examining Visual Arguments: Claim about
Category {Definition)
The Criteria-Match Structure of Definition
Arguments
229
230
Overview of Criteria-Match Structure 230
Toulmin Framework for a Definition Argument 231
Criteria and Match Issues 232
Creating Criteria Using Aristotelian Definition 232
For Writing and Discussion: Working with
Criteria 234
Creating Criteria Using an Operational
Definition 234
Conducting the Match Part of a Definition
Argument 234
Idea-Generating Strategies for Creating Your
Own Criteria-Match Argument 235
Strategy 1: Research How Others Have
Defined the Term 235
Strategy 2: Create Your Own Extended
Definition 236

For Writing and Discussion: Developing a
Definition 238
Writing Assignment: A Definition Argument 239
Exploring Ideas
Identifying Your Audience and Determining
What's at Stake
Organizing a Definition Argument
Questioning and Critiquing a Definition
Argument
Readings
Arthur Knopf (Student Essay), Is Milk
a Health Food?
Alex Mullen (Student Essay), A Pirate But
Not a Thief: What Does "Stealing" Mean
in a Digital Environment?
MARK OPPENHEIMER, How Do We
Define Adulthood?
13 Causal Arguments
An Overview of Causal Arguments
Kinds of Causal Arguments
239
240

240
240
242
242
245
247
250
251
252
xii Contents
Toulmin Framework for a Causal Argument 254
Causal Chains 256
Two Methods for Arguing That One Event
Causes Another 256
First Method: Explain the Causal Mechanism
Directly 257
Second Method: Infer Causal Links Using
Inductive Reasoning 258

Plausible Causal Chains Based on
Correlations 259
Examining Visual Arguments: A Causal Claim 259
Key Terms and Inductive Fallacies in Causal
Arguments 260
A Glossary of Key Terms 260
Avoiding Common Inductive Fallacies
That Can Lead to Wrong Conclusions 261
For Writing and Discussion: Brainstorming
Causes and Constraints 262
Writing Assignment: A Causal Argument 262
Exploring Ideas 262
What's at Stake 263
Organizing a Causal Argument 264
Questioning and Critiquing a Causal
Argument 265
Readings 266
Jesse Goncalves (Student Essay), What
Causes Math Anxiety? 267
KRIS SAKNUSSEMM, Mirror, Mirror on the

Wall, Are We Really Here at All? Can We Tell? 273
Carlos Macias (Student Essay), "The Credit
Card Company Made Me Do It!" The Credit
Card Industry's Role in Causing Student Debt 275
14 Evaluation and Ethical
Arguments
An Overview of Categorical and Ethical
Evaluation Arguments
Constructing a Categorical Evaluation
Argument
Criteria-Match Structure of Categorical
Evaluations
280
282
282
283
Developing Your Criteria 284
Making Your Match Argument 285
Examining Visual Arguments: An
Evaluation Claim 286
Criteria and Match Arguments 287

Constructing an Ethical Evaluation Argument 288
Consequences as the Base of Ethics 288
Principles as the Base of Ethics 289
Example Ethical Arguments Examining
Capital Punishment 289
For Writing and Discussion: Developing an
Ethical Argument 291
Common Problems in Making Evaluation
Arguments 291
Writing Assignment: An Evaluation or
Ethical Argument 292
Exploring Ideas 292
What's at Stake 293
Organizing an Evaluation Argument 293
Questioning and Critiquing a Categorical
Evaluation Argument 293
Critiquing an Ethical Argument 294
Readings 295
Lorena Mendoza-Flores (Student Essay),
Silenced and Invisible: Problems of
Hispanic Students at Valley High School 295

Hadley Reeder (Student Essay), A Defective
and Detrimental Dress Code 299
JUDITH DAAR AND EREZ ALONI, Three
Genetic Parents For One Healthy Baby 302
SAMUEL AQUILA, The "Therapeutic
Cloning" of Human Embryos 303
15 Proposal Arguments 306
The Special Features and Concerns of Proposal
Arguments 308
Practical Proposals Versus Policy
Proposals 308
Toulmin Framework for a Proposal
Argument 308
Special Concerns for Proposal Arguments 309
Developing a Proposal Argument 310
Examining Visual Arguments: A
Proposal Claim 311
Convincing Your Readers That a Problem
Exists 311
Explaining the Proposed

Solution
: Showing
the Specifics of Your Proposal 312
Offering a Justification: Convincing Your
Readers That the Benefits of Your Proposal
Outweigh the Costs 313
Using Heuristic Strategies to Develop
Supporting Reasons for Your Proposal 313
The Claim Types Strategy 314
The Stock Issues Strategy 315
For Writing and Discussion: Generating
Ideas Using the Claim Types Strategy 316
For Writing and Discussion: Brainstorming
Ideas for a Proposal 317
Proposal Arguments as Advocacy Posters or

Advertisements 317
Writing Assignment: A Proposal
Argument 318
Exploring Ideas 320
What's at Stake 320
Organizing a Proposal Argument 321
Designing a One-Page Advocacy Poster or
Advertisement 322
Designing PowerPoint Slides or Other Visual
Aids for a Speech 322
Questioning and Critiquing a Proposal
Argument 323
Readings 323
Megan Johnson (Student Essay), A Practical
Proposal 324

Ivan Snook (Student Essay), Flirting with
Disaster: An Argument against Integrating
Women into the Combat Arms 328
Sandy Wainscott (Student Essay), Why
McDonald's Should Sell Meat and Veggie
Pies: A Proposal to End Subsidies for
Cheap Meat 336
MARCEL DICKE AND ARNOLD VAN
HUIS, The Six-Legged Meat of the Future 338
•••
Contents XIII
Part Five The Researched
Argument 341
16 Finding and Evaluating
Sources 342
Formulating a Research Question Instead of
a Topic 343
Thinking Rhetorically About Kinds of Sources 343

Identifying Kinds of Sources Relevant to
Your Question 343
Approaching Sources Rhetorically 343
Types of Sources 347
Finding Sources 348
Conducting Interviews 348
Gathering Source Data from Surveys or
Questionnaires 349
Finding Books and Reference Sources 349
Using Licensed Databases to Find Articles
in Scholarly Journals, Magazines, and News
Sources 350
Finding Cyberspace Sources: Searching the
World Wide Web 350

Selecting and Evaluating Your Sources and
Taking Purposeful Notes 351
Reading with Rhetorical Awareness 351
Evaluating Sources 353
Criteria for Evaluating a Web Source 355
For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing the
Rhetorical Elements of Two Websites 357
Taking Purposeful Notes 357
Conclusion 359
17 Incorporating Sources into
Your Own Argument 360
Using Sources for Your Own Purposes 360
Writer 1: A Causal Argument Showing
Alternative Approaches to Reducing Risk of
Alcoholism 361
Writer 2: A Proposal Argument Advocating
Vegetarianism 362

•
XIV Contents
Writer 3: An Evaluation Argument Looking
Skeptically at Vegetarianism 362
For Writing And Discussion: Using a
Source for Different Purposes 363
Using Summary, Paraphrase, and Quotation 363
Summarizing 363
Paraphrasing 363
Quoting 365
Punctuating Quotations Correctly 366
Quoting a Complete Sentence 366
Quoting Words and Phrases 366

Modifying a Quotation 367
Omitting Something from a Quoted Passage 367
Quoting Something That Contains a Quotation 368
Using a Block Quotation for a Long Passage 368
Appendix Informal Fallacies 397
The Difference Between Formal and Informal
Logic 397
An Overview of Informal Fallacies 398
Fallacies of Pathos 399
Fallacies of Ethos 400
Fallacies of Logos 401
For Writing And Discussion: Persuasive or
Fallacious? 403
Part Six An Anthology of

Arguments 405
Choices for a Sustainable World 406
JOSEPH ALDY, "Curbing Climate Change Creating
Rhetorically Effective Attributive
Tags 369 Has a Dollar Value Here's How and Why
Attributive Tags versus Parenthetical Citations 369
Creating Attributive Tags to Shape Reader
Response 370
Avoiding Plagiarism 371
Why Some Kinds of Plagiarism May Occur
Unwittingly 371
Strategies for Avoiding Plagiarism 372
For Writing And Discussion: Avoiding
Plagiarism 37 4
We Measure It" 407

JAMES A. BAKER, "The Conservative Case
for a Carbon Tax and Dividends" 409
DAVID ROBERTS, "Putting a Price on Carbon
is a Fine Idea. It's Not the End-All Be-All" 411
JULIAN CRIBB, "Our Human Right Not to Be
Poisoned" 416
ALEX HALLATT, "I Stopped Wearing
Leather ... " 419
Conclusion 37 4 BILL MCKIBBEN, "The Question I Get Asked
the Most" 419
18 Citing and Documenting CHELSEA M. ROCHMAN,
"Ecologically
Sources 375 Relevant Data Are Policy-Relevant Data" 422
The Correspondence between In-Text Citations
and the End-of-Paper List of Cited Works 375
MLA Style 377
In-Text Citations in MLA Style 377

Works Cited List in MLA Style 379
BEN ADLER, "Banning Plastic Bags is Great for
the World, Right? Not So Fast" 424
SUN SENTINEL EDITORIAL BOARD, "Plastic
Bag Ban: Let's Not Get Carried Away" 427
For Writing and Discussion: Choices for a
Sustainable World 429
MLA Works Cited Citation Models 379
MLA-Style Research Paper 389 Writing Assignment: Rhetorical
Analysis 430
APA Style 389
In-Text Citations in APA Style 390
Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society? 431
References List in APA Style 390 DAVID UBERTI, "The Real
History of Fake

APA References Citation Models 391 News" 432
APA-Style Research Paper 396 EUGENE KIELY AND LORI
ROBERTSON,
Conclusion 396 "How to Spot Fake News" 437
Contents XV
SARAH WILSON, "I've Heard All the
Arguments against a Sugar Tax. I'm Still
KARSTEN SCHLEY, "Warning!! This
Newspaper May Contain Traces of
Journalism" 442 Calling for One in Australia" 471
HARTFORD COURANT EDITORIAL BOARD,
"Soda Tax Is Nanny-State Overreach" 473
JACK SHAFER, "The Cure for Fake News Is
Worse Than the Disease; Stop Being Trump's
Twitter Fool" 442 SIGNE WILKINSON, "More Jobs Lost to
Soda
ROBERT P. GEORGE AND CORNEL

WEST, "Sign the Statement: Truth-Seeking,
Democracy, and Freedom of Thought and
Expression" 445
LUCIANO FLORID!, "Fake News and a
400-Year-Old Problem: We Need to Resolve the
"Post-Truth" Crisis" 446
PETER WAYNE MOE, "Teaching Writing in a
Post-Truth Era" 449
MARCUS DU SAUTOY, "Why Aren't People
Listening to Scientists?" 450
JEFF HESTER, "The Hermeneutics of Bunk:
How a Physicist Gave Postmodernism a
B~~E~'' ~2
TIMOTHY CAULFIELD, "Blinded by Science:
Modern-Day Hucksters Are Cashing In on
Vulnerable Patients" 454
For Writing and Discussion: Dealing with
Misinformation, Fake News, and
Misconceptions 459

Writing Assignment: Researched Proposal
Speech on Understanding and Evaluating
Scientific Claims 460
Public Health 461
DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE EDITORIAL
BOARD, "Keep Up Fight against Childhood
Obesity" 462
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
BOARD, "Fed or Fed Up? Why We Support
Easing School Lunch Rules" 463
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND
PREVENTION, "Tips for Parents Ideas to Help
Children Maintain a Healthy Weight" 463
JULIA BELLUZ AND JAVIER ZARRACINA,
"We Need to Call American Breakfast What It
Often Is: Dessert" 468
Taxes!"

LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD,
"Are We Subsidizing a Public Health Crisis by
Allowing the Poor to Buy Soda with Food
474
Stamps?" 474
For Writing and Discussion: Public
Health 476
Writing Assignment: Multimodal Argument:
A Storyboard or Cartoon 476
Challenges in Education 477
RACHEL M. COHEN, "Rethinking School
Discipline" 478
RICHARD ULLMAN, "Restorative Justice: The
Zero-Tolerance-Policy Overcorrection" 487
CASSADY ROSENBLUM, "Take It From a New
Orleans Charter School Teacher: Parents Don't
Always Get School Choice Right" 489

PAUL FELL, "Educators Try to Keep Public
Education away from School Vouchers and
Charter Schools" 491
DOUGLAS N. HARRIS, "Why Managed
Competition Is Better Than a Free Market for
Schooling" 492
RACHEL LAM, "Separate but Unequal" 501
RAFAEL WALKER, "How Canceling
Controversial Speakers Hurts Students" 503
GINA BARRECA, "I'm Not Giving Students
"Trigger Warnings"" 505
ONNI GUST, "I Use Trigger Warnings But
I'm Not Mollycoddling My Students" 507
For Writing and Discussion: Challenges in
Education
Writing Assignment: A Researched
Evaluation Argument on an Educational

Policy
509
510
xvi Contents
Self-Driving Cars
ROBIN CHASE, "Self-Driving Cars Will
Improve Our Cities, If They Don't Ruin
Them"
SCOTT SANTENS, "Self-Driving Trucks Are
Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven
Truck"
DREW HENDRICKS, "Five Reasons You
511
512

519
Should Embrace Self-Driving Cars" 526
THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEW YORK
TIMES, "Would You Buy a Self-Driving Future
from These Guys?" 528
For Writing and Discussion: Self-Driving
Cars 530
Writing Assignment: A Researched
Argument on a Subissue Related to
Self-Driving Cars 531
Immigration in the Twenty-First
Century 532
MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, "Fact Checker: The
White House' s Claim that "Sanctuary" Cities
Are Violating the Law" 533
KENT LUNDGREN, "Stop Immigration
Processing as Leverage against

Sanctuaries?" 535
DARLENE NICGORSKI, "Convicted of the
Gospel" 537
LUPE VALDEZ, ED GONZALEZ, AND JAVIER
SALAZAR, "Enforcement in Sanctuary Cities
Should Be Peds' Job, Not Local Police" 539
JEFF DANZIGER, "Coming Soon to a
House Like Yours" 540
SALIL SHETTY, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,
"Foreword to Tackling the Global Refugee Crisis:
From Shirking to Sharing Responsibility" 541
STEVEN P. BUCCI, "We Must Remain Vigilant
through Responsible Refugee Policies" 544
RICH STEARNS, "Facing Responsibility:
The Face of a Refugee Child" 545
For Writing and Discussion: Immigration
in the Twenty-First Century 547

Writing Assignment: White Paper
Summarizing the Arguments about
a Policy Proposal 548
Argument Classics 549
JONATHAN SWIFT, "A Modest Proposal:
For Preventing the Children of Poor People in
Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents
or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial
to the Public" 549
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, "The
Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
Seneca Falls Conference" (1848) 555
MARGARET SANGER, "The Morality of Birth
Control" 559
For Writing and Discussion: Argument
Classics
Writing Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis
Credits

Index
563
563
564
567
hrough ten editions, Writing Arguments has sustained its
reputation as a
leading college textbook in argumentation. By focusing on
argument as a
collaborative search for the best solutions to problems (as
opposed to pro/
con debate), Writing Arguments treats argument as a process of
inquiry as well as
a means of persuasion. Users and reviewers have consistently
praised the book
for teaching the critical thinking skills needed for writing

arguments: how to
analyze the occasion for an argument; how to analyze arguments
rhetorically;
how to ground an argument in the values and beliefs of the
targeted audience;
how to develop and elaborate an argument; and how to respond
sensitively to
objections and alternative views. We are pleased that in this
eleventh edition, we
have improved the text in key ways while retaining the text's
signature strengths.
What's New in the Eleventh Edition?
Based on our continuing research into argumentation theory and
pedagogy and
on our own experiences as classroom teachers, we have made
significant improve-
ments in the eleventh edition that will increase students'
understanding of the
value of argument and help them negotiate the rhetorical
divisiveness in today's
world. Here are the major changes in the eleventh edition:
• Use of Aristotle's -'-'provisional truths" to address post-truth,
post-fact

challenges to argument. This edition directly engages the
complexity of
conducting reasoned argument in a public sphere that is often
dominated by
ideological camps, news echo chambers, and charges of fake
news. A revised
Chapter 1 uses Aristotle's view of probabilistic or provisional
truths to carve
out a working space for argument between unachievable
certainty and nihil-
istic relativism. Chapter 1's view of argument as both truth-
seeking and
persuasion is carried consistently throughout the text. This
edition directly
tackles the challenges to reasoned argument posed by dominant
ideological
perspectives, siloed echo chambers, and a dependence on social
media as a
source of news.
• A reordering, refocusing, and streamlining of chapters to
create better
pedagogical sequencing and coherence. The previous edition's
Chapter 2,
which focused on argument as inquiry combining summary

writing and
exploratory response, has been refocused and moved to Chapter
8. Previ-
ous Chapter 2 material on the genres of argument has now been
placed in
an expanded Chapter 7 on rhetorical analysis. This new
sequencing allows
students to focus first on understanding the principles of
argument (Chapters
1-6) and then to switch to the critical thinking process of
joining an argumen-
tative conversation through reading and strong response. (See
"Structure of
the Text" later in this preface for further explanation.)
••
XVII
•••
XVIII Preface
• A new chapter on collaborative rhetoric as a bridge-building
alternative

to persuasion. Chapter 10, new to this edition, blends ideas from
Rogerian
communication with practices from conflict resolution to help
prepare
students for their roles in private, public, and professional life
amidst clash-
ing values and views. Explanations, guidelines, and exercises
emphasize
nonjudgmentallistening, self-reflection, a search for common
ground, and
suggestions for encouraging ongoing problem-solving through
learning,
listening, and respectful use of language.
• A substantially revised chapter on visual and multimodal
arguments.
Chapter 9 on visual and multimodal rhetoric now includes a new
example
and guidelines for making persuasive videos as well as a new
exercise to
apply image analysis in the construction of visual arguments.
• A revised chapter on rhetorical analysis. Chapter 7,
"Analyzing Arguments
Rhetorically," has been expanded by consolidating rhetorical

instruction from
several chapters into one chapter and linking it to the critical
thinking skills
required for joining an argumentative conversation.
• Updated or streamlined examples and explanations throughout
the text
along with many new images. Instructors familiar with previous
editions
will find many new examples and explanations ranging from a
new dialog
in Chapter 1 to illustrate the difference between an argument
and a quarrel
to a streamlined appendix on logical fallacies at the end. New
images, edito-
rial cartoons, and graphics throughout the text highlight current
issues such
as legalizing marijuana, plastics in the ocean, graffiti in public
places, a soda
tax, cultural and religious diversity, refugees, travel bans, and
cars' carbon
footprints.
• Two new student model essays, one illustrating APA style.
One new stu-

dent model essay evaluates gender bias in a high school dress
code, and the
other, illustrating APA style, explores the causes of math
anxiety in children.
• A handful of lively new professional readings in the rhetoric
section of the
text. New readings ask students to think about a ban on plastic
bags, the
social definition of adulthood, and the psychological effect of
not recognizing
ourselves in videos.
• A thoroughly revised and updated anthology. The anthology
features
updated units as well as four entirely new units.
• A new unit on self-driving cars explores the legal, economic,
and societal
repercussions of this new technological revolution in
transportation.
• A unit on the post-truth, post-fact era examines the difficulties
of con-
suming news and evaluating the factual basis of news and

scientific
claims in the era of ideological siloes and of news as
entertainment via
social media.
• A new unit on the public health crisis explores the personal
and societal
consequences of excessive consumption of sugar, the need to
establish
healthy eating habits in children, and the controversy over a
soda tax.
• A unit on challenges in education examines three areas of
controversy: disci-
plinary policy in K-12 classrooms (restorative justice versus
zero-tolerance);
the voucher system and charter schools as alternatives to public
school; and,
at the college level, trigger warnings and divisive speakers on
campus.
• An updated unit on sustainability examines the carbon tax and
the envi-

ronmental damage caused by the use and disposal of plastic
bottles and
plastic bags.
• The unit on immigration has been updated to explore the
controversy over
sanctuary cities and the American response to refugees.
• A brief argument classics unit offers some famous stylized
historical
arguments.
What Hasn't Changed? The Distinguishing
Strengths of Writing Arguments
The eleventh edition of Writing Arguments preserves the text's
signature strengths
praised by students, instructors, and reviewers:
• Argument as a collaborative search for "best solutions" rather
than as pro-
con debate. Throughout the text, Writing Arguments emphasizes
both the
truth-seeking and persuasive dimensions of argument a dialectic
tension
that requires empathic listening to all stakeholders in an

argumentative con-
versation and the seeking of reasons that appeal to shared
values and beliefs.
For heated arguments with particularly clashing points of view,
we show the
value of Rogerian listening and, in this eleventh edition, point
to collaborative
rhetoric as a shift from making arguments to seeking deeper
understanding
and common ground as a way forward amid conflict.
• Argument as a rhetorical act. Writing Arguments teaches
students to think
rhetorically about argument: to understand the real-world
occasions and con-
texts for argument, to analyze the targeted audience's
underlying values and
assumptions, to understand how evidence is selected and framed
by an angle
of vision, to appreciate the functions and constraints of genre,
and to employ
the classical appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos.
• Argument as critical thinking. When writing an argument,
writers are

forced to lay bare their thinking processes. Focusing on both
reading and
writing, Writing Arguments emphasizes the critical thinking
that underlies
reasoned argument: active questioning, empathic reading and
listening,
believing and doubting, asserting a contestable claim that
pushes against
alternative views, and supporting the claim with a logical
structure of reasons
and evidence all while negotiating uncertainty and ambiguity.
• Consistent grounding in argumentation theory. To engage
students in the
kinds of critical and rhetorical thinking that argument demands,
we draw on
four major approaches to argumentation:
• The enthymeme as a rhetorical and logical structure. This
concept, espe-
cially useful for beginning writers, helps students "nutshell" an
argument
as a claim with one or more supporting because clauses. It also
helps them
see how real-world arguments are rooted in assumptions granted

by the
audience rather than in universal and unchanging principles.
• The three classical types of appeal logos, ethos, and pathos.
These con-
cepts help students place their arguments in a rhetorical context
focus-
ing on audience-based appeals; they also help students create an
effective
voice and style.
•
Preface XIX
XX Preface
• Toulmin's system of analyzing arguments. Toulmin' s system
helps stu-
dents see the complete, implicit structure that underlies an
enthymeme
and develop appropriate grounds and backing to support an
argument's
reasons and warrants, thus helping students tailor arguments to

audiences.
Toulmin analysis highlights the rhetorical, social, and
dialectical nature of
argument.
• Stasis theory concerning types of claims. This approach
stresses the
heuristic value of learning different patterns of support for
different types
of claims and often leads students to make surprisingly rich and
full
arguments.
• Effective writing pedagogy. This text combines explanations
of argument
with best practices from composition pedagogy, including
exploratory writ-
ing, sequenced and scaffolded writing assignments, class-tested
"For Writing
and Discussion" tasks, and guidance through all stages of the
writing process.
To help students position themselves in an argumentative
conversation, the
text teaches the skills of" summary I strong response" the
ability to summa-

rize a source author's argument and to respond to it
thoughtfully. The moves
of summary and strong response teach students to use their own
critical and
rhetorical thinking to find their own voice in a conversation.
• Rhetorical approach to the research process. Writing
Arguments teaches
students to think rhetorically about their sources and about the
ways they
might use these sources in their own arguments. Research
coverage includes
guidance for finding sources, reading and evaluating sources
rhetorically,
taking purposeful notes, integrating source material effectively
(including
rhetorical use of attributive tags), and citing sources using two
academic cita-
tion systems: MLA (8th edition) and APA. The text's rhetorical
treatment of
plagiarism helps students understand the conventions of
different genres and
avoid unintentional plagiarism.
• Extensive coverage of visual rhetoric. Chapter 9 is devoted

entirely to
visual and multimodal rhetoric. Additionally, many chapters
include an
"Examining Visual Rhetoric" feature that connects visual
rhetoric to the
chapter's instructional content. The images that introduce each
part of the
text, as well as images incorporated throughout the text, provide
opportuni-
ties for visual analysis. Many of the text's assignment options
include visual
or multimodal components, including advocacy posters or
speeches sup-
ported with presentation slides.
• Effective and engaging student and professional arguments.
The pro-
fessional and student arguments, both written and visual,
present voices
in current social conversations, illustrate types of argument and
argument
strategies, and provide fodder to stimulate discussion, analysis,
and writing.
Structure of the Text

Writing Arguments provides a coherent sequencing of
instruction while giving
instructors flexibility to reorder materials to suit their needs.
• Part One focuses on the principles of argument: an overview
of argument
as truth-seeking rather than pro-con debate (Chapter 1); the
logos of argu-
ment including the enthymeme (Chapter 2); Toulmin's system
for analyzing
arguments (Chapter 3) and the selection and framing of
evidence (Chapter 4);
the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos (Chapter 5); and
acknowledging and
responding to alternative views (Chapter 6).
• Part Two shifts to the process of argument helping students
learn how
to enter an argumentative conversation by summarizing what
others have
said and staking out their own position and claims. Chapter 7
consolidates

instruction on rhetorical analysis to help students think
rhetorically about
an argumentative conversation. Chapter 8 focuses on argument
as inquiry,
teaching students the groundwork skills of believing and
doubting, sum-
marizing a source author's argument and speaking back to it
with integrity.
• Part Three expands students' understanding of argument.
Chapter 9 focuses
on visual and multimodal argument. Chapter 10, new to the
eleventh edition,
teaches the powerful community-building skill of collaborative
rhetoric as
an alternative to argument. It focuses on mutual understanding
rather than
•
persuas1on.
• Part Four (Chapters 11-15) introduces students to stasis
theory, showing the
typical structures and argumentative moves required for
different claim

types: definition, resemblance, causal, evaluation, and proposal
arguments.
• Part Five (Chapters 16-18) focuses on research skill rooted in
a rhetorical
understanding of sources. It shows students how to use sources
in support
of an argument by evaluating, integrating, citing, and
documenting them
properly. An appendix on logical fallacies is a handy section
where all the
major informal fallacies are treated at once for easy reference.
• Part Six, the anthology, provides a rich and varied selection of
professional
arguments arranged into seven high-interest units, including
self-driving
cars, immigration, sustainability, education, public heath, and
public media
in an age of fake news and alternative facts. It also includes a
unit on classic
arguments. Many of the issues raised in the anthology are first
raised in
the rhetoric so that students' interest in the anthology topics
will already

be piqued.
Revel
Revel is an interactive learning environment that deeply
engages students and
prepares them for class. Media and assessment integrated
directly within the
authors' narrative lets students read, explore interactive content,
and practice in
one continuous learning path. Thanks to the dynamic reading
experience in Revel,
students come to class prepared to discuss, apply, and learn
from instructors and
from each other.
Learn more about Revel
http:/ /www.pearson.com/revel
Supplements
Make more time for your students with instructor resources that
offer effective
learning assessments and classroom engagement. Pearson's
partnership with
educators does not end with the delivery of course materials;
Pearson is there
with you on the first day of class and beyond. A dedicated team

of local Pearson
representatives will work with you not only to choose course
materials but also
•
Preface XXI
••
XXII Preface
to integrate them into your class and assess their effectiveness.
Our goal is your
goal to improve instruction with each semester.
Pearson is pleased to offer the following resources to qualified
adopters of
Writing Arguments. Several of these supplements are available
to instantly down-
load from Revel or on the Instructor Resource Center (IRC);
please visit the IRC
at www.pearsonhighered.com/irc to register for access.
• INSTRUCTOR'S RESOURCE MANUAL, by Hannah Tracy

(Seattle
University). Create a comprehensive roadmap for teaching
classroom, online,
or hybrid courses. Designed for new and experienced
instructors, the Instruc-
tor's Resource Manual includes learning objectives, lecture and
discussion
suggestions, activities for in or out of class, research activities,
participation
activities, and suggested readings, series, and films as well as a
Revel features
section. Available within Revel and on the IRC.
• POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. Make lectures more
enriching for
students. The PowerPoint Presentation includes a full lecture
outline and
photos and figures from the textbook and Revel edition.
Available on the IRC.
We are happy for this opportunity to give public thanks to the
scholars, teachers,
and students who have influenced our approach to composition

and argument.
For this edition, we owe special thanks to our long-time
teammate and colleague
at Seattle University, Hilary Hawley, who aided us in
researching public con-
troversies and finding timely, available readings on these
issues. Hilary wrote
the framing introductions, the headnotes, and the critical
apparatus for many
of the anthology units. Her experience teaching argument,
especially he public
controversies over sustainability, food, immigration, and health,
shaped these
units. We are also grateful to another of our Seattle University
colleagues, Hannah
Tracy, for writing the Instructor's Resource Manual, a task to
which she brings
her knowledge of argumentation and her experience teaching
civic and academic
argument. We thank Stephen Bean for his research on self-
driving cars and on
issues related to legalizing marijuana. Finally, we thank Kris
Saknussemm and
Janie Bube for their design contributions to several of the visual
arguments in

this edition.
We are particularly grateful to our talented students Jesse
Goncalves (argu-
ment on math anxiety), Hadley Reeder (argument on high school
dress codes) and
Camille Tabari (PSA video "It's a Toilet, Not a Trash Can") who
contributed to
this edition their timely arguments built from their intellectual
curiosity, ideas,
personal experience, and research. Additionally, we are grateful
to all our stu-
dents whom we have been privileged to teach in our writing
classes and to our
other students who have enabled us to include their arguments
in this text. Their
insights and growth as writers have inspired our ongoing study
of rhetoric and
argumentation.
We thank too the many users of our texts who have given us
encouragement
about our successes and offered helpful suggestions for
improvements. Particu-
larly we thank the following scholars and teachers who

reviewed the previous
edition of Writing Arguments and whose valuable suggestions
informed this new
edition:
Max Hohner, Eastern Washington University
Jeff Kosse, Iowa Western Community College
Jeremy Meyer, Arizona State University
Jennifer Waters, Arizona State University
We wish to express our gratitude to our developmental editor
Steven Rigolosi
for his skill, patience, diligence, and deep knowledge of all
phases of textbook
production. Steve's ability to provide timely guidance
throughout the production
process made this edition possible.
As always, we thank our families, who ultimately make this
work possible.
John Bean thanks his wife, Kit, also a professional composition
teacher, and his

children Matthew, Andrew, Stephen, and Sarah, all of whom
have grown to adult-
hood since he first began writing textbooks. Our lively
conversations at family
dinners, which now include spouses, partners, and
grandchildren, have kept him
•••
XXIII
•
XXIV Acknowledgments
engaged in arguments that matter about how to create a just,
humane, and sus-
tainable world. June Johnson thanks her husband, Kenneth
Bube, a mathematics
professor and researcher, and her daughter, Janie Bube. Ken and
Janie have played
major roles in the ongoing family analysis of argumentation in
the public sphere
on wide-ranging subjects. Janie's knowledge of environmental
issues and digi-

tal design and Kenneth's of mathematical thinking and the
public perception of
science have broadened June's understanding of argument
hotspots. They have
also enabled her to meet the demands and challenges of
continuing to infuse new
ideas and material into this text in each revision.
John C. Bean
June Johnson
• •
etoric wit
-event it ion

PART ONE
• •
1 Argument: An Introduction
2 The Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reasons
3 The Logical Structure of Argument: Logos
4 Using Evidence Effectively
5 Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos
6 Responding to Objections and Alternative Views
Factory farming, the m ass production of animals for meat on an
industrial model, shown in this
photo, is a n etwork of controversial issues, including cruelty to
animals, healthfulness of meat diets,
disconnection of people from their food , strain on
environmental resources, and economic effects on
sm all farming.
1

2
Chapter 1
•
•
Learning Objectives
In this chapter you will learn to:
1.1 Explain common misconceptions about the meaning of
argument.
1.2 Describe defining features of argument.
1.3 Understand the relationship of argument to the process of
truth-seeking and inquiry.
This book is dedicated to the proposition that reasoned
argument is essential
for the functioning of democracies. By establishing a separation

of powers and
protecting individual rights, the U. S. Constitution p laces
argument at the center
of civic life. At every layer of democracy, government decisions
about laws,
regulations, right actions, and judicial outcomes depend on
reasoned argument,
which involves listening to multip le perspectives. As former
Vice President Al
Gore once put it, "Faith in the power of reason the belief that
free citizens can
govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical
debate on the basis of
the best evidence available, instead of raw power was and
remains the central
premise of American democracy."1
Yet, many public intellectuals, scholars, and journalists have
written that we
are now entering a post-truth era, where the "best evidence
available" becomes
unmoored from a shared understanding of reality. How citizens
access informa-
tion and how they think about public issues is increasingly
complicated by the

unregulated freedom of the Internet and the stresses of a
globalized and ethnically
and religiously diverse society. Many citizens now focus on the
entertainment
d imension of news or get their news from sources that match
their own political
leanings. One source's "news" may be another source's "fake
news." In fact, the
concept of argument is now entangled in post-truth confusions
about what an
argument is.
What, then, do we mean by reasoned argument, and why is it
vital for coping
with post-truth confusion? The meaning of reasoned argument
will become
clearer in this opening chapter and throughout this text. We
hope your study of
1 Al Gore, Assault on Reason. New York: Penguin, 2007, p. 2.
Argument: An Introduction 3

reasoned argument will lead you to value it as a student, citizen,
and professional.
We begin this chapter by debunking some common
misconceptions about argu-
ment. We then examine three defining features of argument: It
requires writers or
speakers to justify their claims; it is both a product and a
process; and it combines
elements of truth-seeking and persuasion. Finally, we look
closely at the tension
between truth-seeking and persuasion to encourage you to use
both of these pro-
cesses in your approach to argument.
hat Do e Mean by Argument?
1.1 Explain common misconceptions about the meaning of
argument.
Let's begin by examining the inadequacies of two popular
images of argument:
fight and debate.
Argum.ent Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel
To many, the word argument connotes anger and hostility, as
when we say, "I just

had a huge argument with my roommate," or "My mother and I
argue all the
time." We picture heated disagreement, rising pulse rates, and
an urge to slam
doors. Argument imagined as fight conjures images of shouting
talk-show guests,
flaming bloggers, or fist-banging speakers.
But to our way of thinking, argument doesn't imply anger. In
fact, arguing
is often pleasurable. It is a creative and productive activity that
engages us at
high levels of inquiry and critical thinking, often in
conversation with people we
like and respect. When you think about argument, we invite you
to envision not
a shouting match on cable news but rather a small group of
reasonable people
seeking the best solution to a problem. We will return to this
image throughout
the chapter.
Argum.ent Is Not Pro-Con Debate
Another popular image of argument is debate a presidential
debate, perhaps, or

a high school or college debate tournament. According to one
popular dictionary,
debate is "a formal contest of argumentation in which two
opposing teams defend
and attack a given proposition." Although formal debate can
develop critical
thinking, it has a key weakness: It can turn argument into a
game of winners and
losers rather than a process of cooperative inquiry.
For an illustration of this weakness, consider one of our former
students, a
champion high school debater who spent his senior year
debating the issue of
prison reform. Throughout the year he argued for and against
propositions such
as "The United States should build more prisons" and
"Innovative alternatives
to prison should replace prison sentences for most crimes." We
asked him, "What
do you personally think is the best way to reform prisons?" He
replied, "I don't
know. I haven't thought about what I would actually choose."
Here was a bright, articulate student who had studied prisons

extensively
for a year. Yet nothing in the atmosphere of pro-con debate had
engaged him in
truth-seeking inquiry. He could argue for and against a
proposition, but he hadn't
experienced the wrenching process of clarifying his own values
and taking a
4 Chapter 1
personal stand. As we explain throughout this text, argument
entails a desire for
truth-seeking; it aims to find the best solutions to complex
problems. We don't
mean that arguers don't passionately support their own points of
view or expose
weaknesses in views they find faulty. Instead, we mean that
their goal isn't to win
a game but to find and promote the best belief or course of
action.
Arguments Can Be Explicit or Implicit
Before we examine some of the defining features of argument,

we should note also
that arguments can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit
arguments (either written
or oral) directly state their contestable claims and support them
with reasons
and evidence. Implicit arguments, in contrast, may not look like
arguments at all.
They may be bumper stickers, billboards, posters, photographs,
cartoons, vanity
license plates, slogans on aT-shirt, advertisements, poems, or
song lyrics. But like
explicit arguments, they persuade their audience toward a
certain point of view.
Consider the poster in Figure 1.1 part of one state's recent
citizen campaign
to legalize marijuana. The poster's comparative data about
"annual deaths," its
beautiful green marijuana leaves, and its cluster of peanuts
make the implicit
argument that marijuana is safe even safer than peanuts.
The poster's intention is to persuade voters to approve the state
initiative
to legalize pot. But this poster is just one voice in a complex

conversation. Does
Figure 1.1 An implic it argument favoring
legalization of marijuana
DEATHS PER
From Tobacco
From Alcohol
From Drug Overdose
From Texting and Driving
From Peanuts
From Marijuana Use
480, 000
88,000
64,000
3, 200
100
0
{Sourus: Ctnttrs for DiJeast Conrrol and Prevention,

Nationallnsrirutt on Akohol Abuse and Alcolwlism, Edgar
Snyder
Persona/Injury Law Firm, howsrujfworks. Food Allerv Ruearch
& &lurotion. National Institute on Drug Abuse]
Argument: An Int roduction 5
marijuana have dangers that this poster makes invisible? Would
children and ado-
lescents have more access or less access to marijuana if the drug
were legalized?
Is marijuana a "gateway drug" to heroin and other, harder
drugs? How would
legalization of marijuana affect crime, drug trafficking, and
prison populations?
What would be the cultural consequences if marijuana became
as socially accept-
able as alcohol?
In contrast to the implicit argument made in Figure 1.1,
consider the follow-
ing explicit argument a letter to the editor submitted by student

writer Mike
Overton. As an explicit argument, it states its claim d irectly
and supports it with
reasons and evidence.
An Explicit Argument Opposing Legalization
of Marijuana
LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY STUDENT MIKE OVERTON
Proponents of legalizing marijuana claim that pot is a benign
drug because it
has a low risk of overdose and causes few deaths. Pot is even
safer than peanuts,
according to a recent pro-legalization poster. However, pot
poses grave psycho-
logical risks, particularly to children and adolescents, that are
masked if we focus
only on death rate.
Several studies have shown adverse effects of marijuana on
memory, deci-
sion making, and cognition. In one study, Duke University
researchers examined
IQ scores of individuals taken from childhood through age 38.
They found a

noticeable decline in the IQ scores of pot smokers compared
with nonusers, with
greater declines among those who smoked more. Daily pot
smokers dropped, on
average, eight IQ points.
There is also a clear link between pot usage and schizophrenia.
Many studies
have shown an increased risk of schizophrenia and psychosis
from pot usage, par-
ticularly with regular use as an adolescent. Studies find that
regular pot smokers
who develop schizophrenia begin exhibiting symptoms of the
disease earlier than
nonusers, with the average diagnosis occurring 2.7 years earlier
than for nonusers.
These are devastating mental illnesses that cut to the core of our
well-being.
We need to be sure our policies on marijuana don't ignore the
documented mental
health risks of pot, particularly to adolescents in the critical
phase of brain devel-
opment. I urge a "no" vote on legalizing marijuana in our state.

For Writing And Discussion
Implicit and Explicit Arguments
Any argum ent, whet her implicit or expl icit, tries to influence
the audience's stance on an issue, w ith the goal
of m oving the audience toward the arguer 's c laim. A rgument
s work on us psycholog ically as well as cogni-
tively, t riggering em otions as wel l as thoughts and ideas.
Each of t he implicit argum ents in Figures 1.2-1.4
makes a claim on its audience, t rying to get viewers to adopt its
position, perspective, belief, or point of view
•
on an 1ssue.
(continued)
6 Chapter 1
Figure 1.2 Early 1970s cover of the
controversial soc ial protest magazine Science
for the People, wh ich has recently been revived
Figure 1.3 Image from website promoting education in prisons

(HTTP:/ IWWW.PRISONEDUCATION.COMI}
I
Figure 1.4 Cartoon on social etiquette and digital media
(continued)

00
. oo
, (
"Do yov John promiS'e that yovr S'ChedvJe, pJeare pvt yovr
iPhone
away1 will never be more importanttJ,an yovr timeS' to9ether?
11
Individual task:

For each argument, answer the following questions:
1. Observe each argument carefully and then describe it for
someone who hasn't seen it.
2. What conversation do you think each argument joins? What is
the issue or controversy? What is at
stake? (Sometimes "insider knowledge" might be requ ired to
understand the argument. In such cases,
explain to an outsider the needed background information or
cultural context.)
3. What is the argument's claim? That is, what value,
perspective, belief, or position does the argument
ask its viewers to adopt?
4. What is an opposing or alternative view? What views is the
argument pushing against?
5. How do the visual details of each argument contribute to the
persuasive effect?

6. Convert the implicit argument into an explicit argument by
stating its claim and supporting reasons in
words. How do implicit and explicit arguments work d ifferent
ly on the brains or hearts of the audience?
Group task:
Working in pairs or as a class, share your answers w ith
classmates.
8 Chapter 1
The Defining Features of Argument
1.2 Describe defining features of argument.
We now examine arguments in more detail. (Unless we say
otherwise, by argu-
ment we mean explicit arguments that attempt to supply reasons
and evidence
to support their claims.) This section examines three defining
features of such

arguments.
Argument Requires Justification of Its Claims
To begin defining argument, let's turn to a humble but universal
area of disagree-
ment: the conflict between new housemates over house rules. In
what way and in
what circumstances do such conflicts constitute arguments?
AVERY: (grabbing his backpack by the door) See you. I'm
heading for class.
DANIEL: (loudly and rapidly) Wait. What about picking up
your garbage all over
the living room? that pizza box, those cans, and all those
papers. I think you
even spilled Coke on the rug.
AVERY: Hey, get off my case. I'll clean it up tonight.
With this exchange, we have the start of a quarrel, not an
argument. If
Daniel's anger picks up suppose he says, "Hey, slobface, no way
you're leav-
ing this house without picking up your trash!" then the quarrel

will escalate
into a fight.
But let's say that Daniel remains calm. The dialogue then takes
this turn.
DANIEL: Come on, Avery. We had an agreement to keep the
house clean.
Now we have the beginnings of an argument. Fleshed out,
Daniel's reasoning
goes like this: You should clean up your mess because we had
an agreement
to keep the house clean. The unstated assumption behind this
argument is that
people should live up to their agreements.
Now Avery has an opportunity to respond, either by advancing
the argument
or by stopping it cold. He could stop it cold by saying, "No, we
never agreed to
anything." This response pushes Avery's hapless housemates
into a post-truth
world where there is no agreement about reality. Unless
stakeholders have a

starting place grounded in mutually accepted evidence, no
argument is possible.
Their dispute can be decided only by power.
But suppose that Avery is a reasonable person of good will. He
could advance
the argument by responding this way:
AVERY: Yes, you are right that we had an agreement. But
perhaps our agree-
ment needs room for exceptions. I have a super-heavy day
today.
Now a process of reasonable argument has emerged. Avery
offers a reason for
rushing from the house without cleaning up. In his mind his
argument would go
like this: "It is OK for me to wait until tonight to clean up my
mess because I have a
super-heavy day." He could provide evidence for his reason by
explaining his heavy
schedule (a group project for one course, a paper due in another,
and his agreement
with his boss to work overtime at his barista job throughout the
afternoon). This rea-

son makes sense to Avery, who is understandably immersed in
his own perspective.
However, it might not be persuasive to Daniel, who responds
this way:
Argument: An Int roduction 9
DANIEL: I ap preciate your busy schedule, but I am p lanning
to be at home all day,
and I can't study in this mess. It is unfair for me to have to
clean up your stuff.
Fleshed out, Daniel 's argument goes like this: "It is not OK for
you to leave
trash in the living room, because your offer to clean your mess
tonight doesn't
override my right to enjoy a clean living space today." The
dialogue now illus-
trates what is required for reasonable argument: (1) a set of two
or more conflicting
claims ("it is OK I is not OK to leave this mess until tonight")
and (2) the attempt
to justify the claims with reasons and evidence.

The first defining feature of argument, then, is the attempt to
justify claims
with reasons and evidence. Avery and Daniel now need to think
further about
how they can justify their claims. The d isagreement between
the housemates is not
primarily about facts: Both d isputants agree that they had
established house rules
about cleanliness, that Avery is facing a super-heavy day, and
that Avery's mess
disturbs Daniel. The dispute is rather about values and fairness
principles that
are articulated in the unstated assumptions that undergird their
reasons. Avery's
assumption is that "unusual circumstances can temporarily
suspend house rules."
Daniel's assumption is that "a temporary suspension to be
acceptable cannot
treat other housemates unfairly." To justify his claim, therefore,
Avery has to show
not only that his day is super-heavy but also that h is cleaning
his mess at the end
of the day isn't unfair to Daniel. To plan his argument, Avery
needs to anticipate

the questions his argument w ill raise in Daniel 's mind: Will
today's mess truly be
a rare exception to our house rule, or is Avery a natural slob
who will leave the
house messy almost every day? What w ill be the state of the
house and the quality
of the living situation if each person simply makes his own
exceptions to house
rules? Will continuing to spill food and drinks on the carpet
affect the return of
the security deposit on the house rental?
In addition, Daniel needs to anticipate some of Avery's
questions: Are tem-
porary periods of messiness really unfair to Daniel? How much
does Daniel's
neat-freak personality get in the way of house harmony? Would
some flexibility
in house rules be a good thing? The attempt to justify their
assumptions forces
both Avery and Daniel to think about the degree of
independence each demands
when sharing a house.
As Avery and Daniel listen to each other's points of view (and

begin realizing
why their initial arguments have not persuaded their intended
audience), we can
appreciate one of the earliest meanings of the term to argue,
which is "to clarify."
As arguers clarify their own positions on an issue, they also
begin to clarify their
audience's position. Such clarification helps arguers see how
they might accom-
modate their audience's views, perhaps by adjusting their own
position or by
developing reasons that appeal to their audience's values. Thus
Avery might sug-
gest something like this:
AVERY: Hey, Daniel, I can see why it is unfair to leave you
with my mess. What
if I offered you some kind of trade-off?
Fleshed out, Avery's argument now looks like this: "It is OK for
me to wait
until the end of the day to clean up my mess because I am
willing to offer you
a satisfactory trade-off." The offer of a trade-off immediately
addresses Daniel 's

sense of being treated unfairly and might lead to negotiation on
what this trade-
off might be. Perhaps Avery agrees to do more of the cooking,
or perhaps there
are other areas of conflict that could become part of a trade -off
bargain noise
levels, sleeping times, music preferences. Or perhaps Daniel,
happy that Avery
10 Chapter 1
has offered a trade-off, says it isn't necessary: Daniel concedes
that he can live
with occasional messiness.
Whether or not Avery and Daniel can work out a best solution,
the preceding
scenario illustrates how the need to justify one's claims leads to
a clarification of
facts and values and to the process of negotiating solutions that
might work for
all stakeholders.

Argument Is Both a Process and a Product
As the preceding scenario revealed, argument can be viewed as
a process in which
two or more parties seek the best solution to a question or
problem. Argument can
also be viewed as a product, with each product being any
person's contribution to
the conversation at a given moment. In an informal discussion,
the products are
usually short pieces of conversation. In more formal settings, an
orally delivered
product might be a short, impromptu speech (say, during an
open-mike discus-
sion of a campus issue) or a longer, carefully prepared formal
speech (as in a
Power Point presentation at a business meeting or an argument
at a public hearing
for or against a proposed city project).
Similar conversations occur in writing. Roughly analogous to a
small-group
discussion is an exchange of the kind that occurs regularly
online through infor-
mal chat groups or more formal blog sites. In an online
discussion, participants

have more thinking time to shape their messages than they do in
a real-time oral
discussion. Nevertheless, messages are usually short and
informal, making it pos-
sible over the course of several days to see participants' ideas
shift and evolve as
conversants modify their initial views in response to others'
views.
Roughly equivalent to a formal speech would be a formal
written argument,
which may take the form of an academic argument for a college
course; a grant
proposal; an online posting; a guest column for the op-ed*
section of a newspaper;
a legal brief; a letter to a member of Congress; or an article for
an organizational
newsletter, popular magazine, or professional journal. In each
of these instances,
the written argument (a product) enters a conversation (a
process) in this case, a
conversation of readers, many of whom will carry on the
conversation by writing
their own responses or by discussing the writer's views with
others. The goal of

the community of writers and readers is to find the best solution
to the problem
or issue under discussion.
Argument Combines Truth-Seeking
and Persuasion
In thinking about argument as a product, writers will find
themselves continually
moving back and forth between truth-seeking and persuasion
that is, between
questions about the subject matter (What is the best solution to
this problem?) and
about audience (What do my readers already believe or value?
What reasons and
* Op-ed stands for "opposite-editorial." It is the generic name in
journalism for a signed
argument that voices the writer's opinion on an issue, as
opposed to a news story that is
supposed to report events objectively, uncolored by the writer's
personal views. Op-ed
pieces appear in the editorial-opinion section of newspapers,
which generally features
editorials by the resident staff, opinion pieces by syndicated
columnists, and letters to the

editor from readers. The term op-ed is often extended to
syndicated columns appearing in
newsmagazines, advocacy websites, and online news services.
evidence will most persuade them?). Writers weave back and
forth, alternately
absorbed in the subject of their argument and in the audience
for that argument.
Neither of the two focuses is ever completely out of mind, but
their relative
importance shifts during different phases of the development of
an argument.
Moreover, different rhetorical situations place different
emphases on truth-seeking
versus persuasion. We can thus place arguments on a continuum
that measures the
degree of attention a writer gives to subject matter versus
audience. (See Figure 1.5.)
At the full truth-seeking (left) end of the continuum might be an
exploratory piece

that lays out several alternative approaches to a problem and
weighs the strengths
and weaknesses of each with no concern for persuasion. At the
other (persuasion)
end of the continuum would be outright propaganda, such as a
political adver-
tisement that reduces a complex issue to sound bites and
distorts an opponent's
position through out-of-context quotations or misleading use of
data. (At its most
blatant, propaganda obliterates truth-seeking; it will use any
tool, including bogus
evidence, distorted assertions, and outright lies, to win over an
audience.) In the
middle ranges of the continuum, writers shift their focuses back
and forth between
inquiry and persuasion but with varying degrees of emphasis.
As an example of a writer focusing primarily on truth-seeking,
consider the case
of Kathleen, who, in her college argument course, addressed the
definitional ques-
tion "Is American Sign Language (ASL) a 'foreign language' for
purposes of meeting
the university's foreign language requirement?" Kathleen had

taken two years of
ASL at a community college. When she transferred to a four-
year college, the chair
of the foreign languages department would not allow her ASL
coursework to count
toward Kathleen's foreign language requirement. "ASL isn't a
language," the chair
said summarily. "It's not equivalent to learning French, German,
or Japanese."
Kathleen disagreed, so she immersed herself in developing her
argument.
While doing research, she focused almost entirely on the subject
matter, searching
for what linguists, neurologists, cognitive psychologists, and
sociologists have
said about the language of deaf people. Immersed in her subject
matter, she was
only tacitly concerned with her audience, whom she thought of
primarily as her
classmates and the professor of her argument class people who
were friendly to
her views and interested in her experiences with the deaf
community. She wrote
a well-documented paper, citing several scholarly articles, that

made a good case
to her classmates (and the professor) that ASL is indeed a
distinct language.
Proud of the A she received on her paper, Kathleen decided for
a subsequent
assignment to write a second paper on ASL but this time aiming
it directly at
the chair of the foreign languages department and petitioning
her to accept ASL
proficiency for the foreign language requirement. Now her
writing task fell closer
to the persuasive end of our continuum. Kathleen once again
immersed herself in
Figure 1.5 Continuum of arguments from truth-seeking to
persuasion
Truth Seeking
Essay examining
all sides of an
issue and possibly
not arriving at a
conclusive answer

Argument as inquiry;
asking audience to
think out the issue
with the writer
Argument, aimed at a
neutral or skeptical
audience, that shows
awareness of
different views
Argument aimed at a
friendly audience
(often for fundraising
or calls to action)
Persuasion
Aggressive onesided
argument that simply
delivers a message
12 Chapter 1

research, but this time she focused not on subject matter
(whether ASL is a distinct
language) but on audience. She researched the history of the
foreign language
requirement at her college and discovered some of the politics
behind it (the
foreign language requirement had been dropped in the 1970s
and reinstituted
in the 1990s, partly a math professor told her to boost
enrollments in foreign
language courses). She also interviewed foreign language
teachers to find out
what they knew and didn't know about ASL. She discovered that
many teachers
thought ASL was "easy to learn," so that accepting ASL would
give students a
Mickey Mouse way to avoid the rigors of a "real" foreign
language class. Addi-
tionally, she learned that foreign language teachers valued
immersing students
in a foreign culture; in fact, the foreign language requirement
was part of her
college's effort to create a multicultural curriculum.

This increased understanding of her target audience helped
Kathleen recon-
ceptualize her argument. Her claim that ASL is a real language
(the subject of her
first paper) became only one section of her second paper, much
condensed and
abridged. She added sections showing the difficulty of learning
ASL (to counter
her audience's belief that learning ASL is easy), showing how
the deaf community
forms a distinct culture with its own customs and literature (to
show how ASL
would meet the goals of multiculturalism), and showing that the
number of transfer
students with ASL credits would be negligibly small (to allay
fears that accepting
ASL would threaten enrollments in language classes). She
ended her argument with
an appeal to her college's public emphasis (declared boldly in
its mission statement)
on eradicating social injustice and reaching out to the
oppressed. She described the
isolation of deaf people in a world where almost no hearing
people learn ASL, and
she argued that the deaf community on her campus could be

integrated more fully
into campus life if more students could talk with them. Thus the
ideas included in
her new argument the reasons selected, the evidence used, the
arrangement and
tone all were determined by her primary focus on persuasion.
Our point, then, is that all along the continuum, writers attempt
both to seek
truth and to persuade, but not necessarily with equal balance.
Kathleen could
not have written her second paper, aimed specifically at
persuading the chair of
the foreign languages department, if she hadn't first immersed
herself in truth-
seeking research that convinced her that ASL is indeed a
distinct language. Note
that we are not saying that Kathleen's second argument was
better than her first.
Both arguments fulfilled their purposes and met the needs of
their intended audi-
ences. Both involved truth-seeking and persuasion, but the first
focused primarily
on subject matter whereas the second focused primarily on
audience.

Argument and the Problem of Truth
in the 21st Century
1.3 Understand the relationship of argument to the process of
truth-seeking
and inquiry.
The tension that we have just examined between truth-seeking
and persuasion
raises an ancient issue in the field of argument: Is the arguer's
first obligation
to truth or to winning the argument? And just what is the nature
of the truth to
which arguers are supposed to be obligated?
Early Greek rhetoricians and philosophers particularly the
Sophists,
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all wrestled with this tension. In
Plato's Dialogues,
these questions were at the heart of Socrates' disagreement with

the Sophists. The
Sophists were professional rhetoricians who specialized in
training orators to win
arguments. Socrates, who valued truth-seeking over persuasion
and believed that
truth could be discovered through philosophic inquiry, opposed
the Sophists. For
Socrates (and Plato), Truth resided in the ideal world of forms,
and through philo-
sophic rigor humans could transcend the changing, shadow like
world of everyday
reality to perceive the world of universals where Truth, Beauty,
and Goodness
resided. Through his method of questioning, Socrates would
gradually peel away
layer after layer of false views until Truth was revealed. The
good person's duty,
Socrates believed, was not to win an argument but to pursue this
higher Truth.
Socrates and Plato distrusted professional rhetoricians because
these professionals
were interested only in the power and wealth that came from
persuading audi-
ences to the orator's views. In contrast, Plato's pupil Aristotle
maintained Plato's

commitment to ethical living but valued rhetoric as a way of
reaching conclu-
sions or what he called "probable truth" in the realm of
everyday living the best
answers available to people who were willing to think deeply
and argue reason-
ably about a problem. Aristotle taught rhetoric and argument as
collective inquiry
in search of new understanding probable truths and best
solutions supported
persuasively by reasons and evidence that could be shared and
agreed upon.
Let's apply these perspectives to a modern example. Suppose
your commu-
nity is d ivided over the issue of raising environmental
standards versus keeping
open a job-producing factory that doesn't meet new guidelines
for waste dis-
charge. In a dispute between jobs and the environment, which is
the best course?
The Sophists would train you to argue any side of this issue on
behalf of any
lobbying group willing to pay for your services. This relativism
and willingness

to manipulate language led over time to the term sophistry
being associated with
trickery in argument. If, however, you applied Aristotle's
practical concern for
"probable truth," you would be inspired to listen to all sides of
the dispute, peel
away unsatisfactory arguments through reasonable inquiry, and
commit yourself
to a course of action that you have come to believe is the best
for as many stake-
holders as possible.
In sum, Plato was concerned with absolute truths residing in the
spiritual
world of forms, while Aristotle valued rhetoric's focus on
probable truths in our
messy human world. Aristotle's view is thus close to that
expressed by Al Gore
at the beginning of this chapter. Aristotle and Gore would agree
that truth the
search for best solutions is messy and complicated and needs to
be negotiated
in an ongoing spirit of argument. Every day we face complex
questions with
multiple stakeholders. Do sanctuary cities make citizens safer,

as many sheriffs
and police departments argue, or do they shelter criminals and
endanger citizens,
as some people contend? Should all controversial speakers be
allowed to speak
on college campuses, or should universities carefully monitor
and restrict these
public forums? There are no simple or clear-cut answers to
these questions, but
one thing is certain: People can't carry on productive argument
if they retreat to
siloed echo chambers where they encounter only those views w
ith which they
already agree. Daniel the neat freak has to encounter Avery the
slob; otherwise,
no growth is possible. Argument works only if we are willing to
question and
clarify our own positions and engage in dialogue w ith those
stakeholders with
whom we disagree.
14 Chapter 1

This truth-seeking approach to argument helps us combat
various traps that
we may fall into. A first trap is that we might become
intellectually lazy, failing to
question easily found or sensationalist information and views.
We might succumb
to "desirability bias" 2-the tendency to accept information that
"we want to
believe." Or we might cling to what political scientist Morgan
Marietti calls
"sacred values"3 religious or secular beliefs that are so central
to our world views
and identities that we accept them as absolute, unquestionable,
and inviolable.
For example, for some persons a woman's right to control her
own body is a
sacred value; for others, an unborn fetus's right to life is a
sacred value. Because
we hesitate to question our sacred values, our emotional
adherence to them can
create a network of beliefs that interpret the world for us.
Emerging from our own
siloed echo chambers is the best way to seek a shareable reality
in what otherwise
might seem a post-truth world. However, as we have seen, truth-

seeking takes
intellectual work and ethical commitment. To restore the value
of argument as
truth-seeking, we must accept the world as pluralistic,
recognizing that others
may not value what we value.
If we accept this p luralistic view of the world, do we then
endorse the
Sophists' radical relativism, freeing us to argue any side of any
issue? Or do we
doggedly pursue some modern equivalent of Aristotle's
"probable truth"?
If your own sympathies are with argument as truth-seeking, then
you must
admit to a view of truth that is tentative, cautious, and
conflicted, and you
must embrace argument as process. In the 21st century, truth-
seeking does not
mean finding the "right answer" to a disputed question, but
neither does it mean
a valueless relativism in which all answers are equally good.
Seeking truth means
taking responsibility for determining the "best answer" or "best

solution" to the
question; it means considering the good of the entire community
when taking
into consideration the interests of all stakeholders. It means
making hard deci-
sions in the face of uncertainty. Viewed in this way, argument
cannot "prove"
your claim, but only make a reasonable case for it. Even though
argument can't
provide certainty, learning to argue effectively has deep value
for society and
democracy: It helps communities settle conflicts in a rational
and humane way
by finding, through the exchange of ideas, the best solutions to
problems without
resorting to violence.
For Writing and Discussion
Role-Playing Arguments
On any given day, the media provide evidence of the complexity
of living in a p luralistic cu lture. Issues that
cou ld be readi ly decided in a completely homogeneous cu lture
ra ise questions in a society that has fewer
shared assumptions. Choose one of the following cases as the
subject for a "simulation game" in which

class members present the points of view of the people
involved.
2 Ben Tappin, Leslie van der Leer, and Ryan McKay define "
desirability bias" in their op-ed
piece, "Your Opinion Is Set in Stone." The New York Times,
May 28, 2017, SR 8.
3 Morgan Marietta, "From My Cold, Dead Hands: Democratic
Consequences of Sacred
Rhetoric." The Journal of Politics Vol. 70, No. 3, July 2008.
Case 1 : Political Asylum for a German Family Seeking the
Right
to Homeschool Their Children
In 2010 an Evangelical Christian family from Germany, Uwe
and Hannelore Romeike and their
five children, moved to the United States seeking asylum from
political persecution. At the
U.S. immigration hearings, the couple argued that if they
remained in Germany their decision

to homeschool their children would result in fines, possible
arrest, and even forced separation
from their children. German law forbids homeschooling on the
grounds that failure to attend
recognized schools will create "parallel societies" w hose
members will fail to integrate into
Germany's open and pluralistic culture. In early 2011, a U.S.
federal immigration judge granted
political asylum to the family, denouncing the German
government's policy against home-
schooling. He called it "utterly repellent to everything we
believe as Americans." However,
in 2013 the Sixth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the
original decision and revoked
the family's status as political refugees. Stating that the United
States cannot give political
asylum to every victim of perceived unfairness in another
country's laws, the court declared
that Germany's ban on homeschooling did not constitute
political persecution. The decision
led to international debate about the role of homeschooling in a
pluralistic society and about
the definition of political persecution. In the United States, the
Homeschooling Legal Defense
Association urged that the case be heard by the United States

Supreme Court and sponsored
a petition drive supporting the Romeike family.
Your task:
Imagine a public hearing on this issue where all stakeholders
are invited to present their points of
view. The U.S. Immigration website offers the following
definition of refugee status:
Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have
been persecuted or fear they
will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/
or membership in a particular
social group or political opinion.
Your goal isn't to make your own decision about this case but
rather to bring to imaginative life
all the viewpoints on the controversy. Hold a mock public
hearing in which classmates play the
following roles: (a) A U.S. parent advocating homeschooling;
(b) a U.S. teacher's union representative
opposing homeschooling; (c) an attorney arguing that the
Romeike family meets the criteria for
"refugee status"; (d) an attorney arguing that the Romeike

family does not meet the criteria for
refugee status; (e) a German citizen supporting the German law
against homeschooling; (f) a
Romeike parent arguing that the family would be persecuted if
the family returned to Germany;
(g) other roles that are relevant to this case.
Case 2 : HPV Vaccines for Sixth Grade Girls (and Boys)
In 2007 the pharmaceutical company Merck developed a vaccine
against the sexually trans-
mitted HPV virus (human papillomavirus), some strains of
which can cause cervical cancer
as well as genital warts. The company launched an extensive
television campaign promoting
the vaccine (which would bring substantial profits to Merck)
and advised that girls should
get the vaccine before they reach puberty. Following
recommendations from doctors and
medical researchers, several states passed laws mandating that
the HPV vaccine for girls
be included among the other vaccinations required of all
children for entry into the sixth or
seventh grades (depending on the state). These laws sparked
public debate about the bene-

fits versus potential adverse effects of vaccines, and about the
state's versus parents' role in
determining what vaccines a child should get.
(continued)
16 Chapter 1
Your task:
Imagine a public hearing addressing what your state's laws
should be concerning HPV vaccina-
tions for prepubescent children. Your goal isn't to make your
own decision about this case but
rather to bring to imaginative life all the viewpoints in the
controversy. Hold a mock hearing in
which classmates play the following roles: (a) a cancer
specialist who supports mandatory HPV
vaccination for girls; (b) a public health specialist who supports
expanding the requirement to
include boys; (c) a skeptical person concerned about the
potential adverse effects of vaccines in
general; (d) a religiously conservative parent who believes in

ENGL 102 Netiquette Statement In order to maintain a p

ENGL 102 Netiquette Statement In order to maintain a p

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from TanaMaeskm

More from TanaMaeskm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ENGL 102 Netiquette Statement In order to maintain a p